It's not so much low-time FO's that are a problem, it's former low-time FO's who upgrade too quickly without a wide enough experience base. Airline pilots are trained to operate in class B environments, ie spoon-fed. But most regionals end up actually operating in General Aviation territory at small, sometimes uncontrolled airports.
Of course you need good training too, but you need an experience base before you can properly apply the training. What we do still has too many variables and complexities to try to apply book-learning to every situation without knowledge of what's really going on out there. Anything less than 1000 hours is ludicrous, those of us who got hired at 1500-2500 hours still had a lot to learn about airlines but at least we had some aviation experience to build when we arrived...

Get real. Nobody who has the slightest clue about aviation thinks that bottom-feeder FO pay is not a safety problem...

- Can't afford to live in base => forced commute => fatigue risk
- Can't afford to live period => second job => fatigue risk
- Lifestyle Stress => fatigue risk

Sure, some Americans live in their cars and work three minimum wage jobs but nobody ever said that's a healthy lifestyle.

I don't know what the answer to this problem is, but I strongly feel mandating a fixed amount of time is not the answer. As I've said before, I'm not arguing for low time hires. I'm just don't like setting a number in stone that can be gamed by crafty people.

I don't think anyone can accurately pick a number that equates to true safety. Personally, I know my skills and overall competency improved greatly as I passed the 1000 hour mark. Did it happen the moment I hit 1000 hours? Of course not, but I noticed that things seemed to operate far more smoothly. For others, it may have been 750 hours or 1250 hours.

I have a background that's a little different from many of those seeking a regional job. I earned a degree in both finance and economics. I learned to fly after college in a 141 school. I built the majority of my time flying solo and have racked up some where close to 125 hours of IMC. I have some instructing time as well, but only in the area of 200 hours.

I noticed someone said the House bill carried an exemption for those who trained at an accredited 141 school. That seems fair, but, sorry to say this, what about my experience shouldn't allow an exemption. I'm not whining about this, I'm just usuing it as an example. As it is, I'm not to far from 1500 anyway (1250 TT).

Having read so many comments about this topic in the last few months, it seems many favor this bill because they believe it will increase pay. I'm sorry, but I don't see any connection between the two ideas. Higher time requirements are not going to force airlines to pay higher wages. That's a pipedream.

Just read what he had to say and myself I completely agree with the view the FAA takes on this.

Take a military pilot who just left the navy with 1000 hours in an F-18 vs. some kid who has 2000 hours flying circles over his farm in a C-152.

2000 hour kiddo gets hired while the Navy pilot does not because he doesn't meet the magical 1500 number.

This is an extreme example obviously but you get the point.

It is obvious to me. Quality not quantity.

I hope you don't get an inexperienced , fresh out of law school counsler arguing your death penalty case. Get my drift?

I keep reading about quality time and not quantity..... Where are the low time pilots going to gain this quality time? The idea is for individuals to obtain an ATP license prior to flying for a 121 carrier, what is wrong with this. Setting minimum standards is a big piece of the puzzle. It is not the entire fix but it is a start.

While one can argue that 2000 hours riding along as an instructor doesn't make you a good pilot it does make you more experienced than a 300 hour pilot doing the same thing. I have had the opportunity to fly with, instruct, and check out both low and high time pilots, that being said hours do make a difference.

The same places they always have. First instructing, towing banners, lifting jumpers, then moving on to a 135 gig.

But that is soooo hard and un-livin'-the-dream.

Experience no longer required.

Here's a Idea for the " Quality over Quantity " crowd

why not do away with the ATP and make it so you can go directly to the left seat with 250 hours and that high quality training ?

I'm not sure what your instructor, school or parents told you, but at 250 hours, your nuts haven't even dropped yet.

If it's not about quantity then why not take it a step further and do away with 135 mins as well? :D Absolutely ridiculous.

I agree with you one hundred percent.

For those that dont know me I was a very lo time pilot. I think you mistook what ive been saying. I'm not going to say what the number should be, I dont know. If its 800 fine, 1500 fine, but lets lose the inconsistency, one number (whatever it is) across the boards, not changing every year. Lets focus on the real issue which is training accountability..Anyone who thinks 1500hrs would have prevented 3407 isnt paying attention.